[Zimphire]

One reason I know TLT was crap was, people like James seem to cling to it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Will the conservative faction please just ignore this James Christ character?

I mean, Jeez, wasn't it fairly obvious from the abuse in his first two posts in this thread that he's a troll?

Sheesh.

-s*

I didn't see this the first time. Impressed.

[dav]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Please point to where I was being dishonest, and show how I was being dishonest.

we both know it is impossible for me to show you where you were dishonest, you know the truth.
that's priceless.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dav:
we both know it is impossible for me to show you where you were dishonest, you know the truth.
that's priceless.

In other words, you have no content, no proof, just silliness and baseless accusations you think you can pass off just by posting a " "

I would be proud of that if I was you.

[dav]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
In other words, you have no content, no proof, just silliness and baseless accusations you think you can pass off just by posting a " "

I would be proud of that if I was you.

i'm not surprised you would think that way

[SubGeniux]

TLC sucked? Pity, because it was a film with many themes running through it. A film in which the 'literal' life of Jesus wasn't merely paraded on screen, but in which a deeper outlook of many aspects of who Jesus might have been, was on display. Passion is just a rehash of some 4 Gospels in which there is no depth, character development is simple at best, and there is no serious attenot at looking beyond the mere words on a page. I guess that'l appeal to thoseChristians who are pretty much a bunch of football hooligans cheering on their team. Says a lot for modern cinematography, and the type of audience that Passion would attract.

P.s. If one can't see the deeper resonance in TLC, then I reckon you should expand your intellectual intake.

What I found with TLC, is thast those who condemned it, or thought, 'nah, it was awful', are either incapable of seeing what the message it contained; or are blighted by their religious bigotry to the point they dismiss great works of film because if their beliefs. Mind you, I'll give credit to the few who genuinely didn't like it for what it was.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dav:
i'm not surprised you would think that way

No, it's not what I THINK, you yourself have shown this.

Do you think it makes you look clever making such non-answers?

It doesn't. I promise.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, it's not what I THINK, you yourself have shown this.

Do you think it makes you look clever making such non-answers?

It doesn't. I promise.

Was that intended for me? If so, I don't get it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You and me both. You for reviewing that trash in depth, and me wasting my time by watching it.

You're wrong on both counts, though I do admit that TLT is not for everyone.

It's an experiment. Many Christians do not take lightly to experimentation with religious subjects.

You do realize that the premise of TLT is, IIRC, that none of it *actually* happened? He resisted the temptation and ended up right where he was. (AFAICR; I really need to re-watch the film at some point...)

That said, I think the soundtrack is probably the most successful aspect of the movie.

-s*

[dav]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That said, I think the soundtrack is probably the most successful aspect of the movie.

-s*

funny, i thought that about kundun.

[SubGeniux]

The book, in which TLC the movie was based on, is definitely worth a read.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You're wrong on both counts, though I do admit that TLT is not for everyone.

It's an experiment. Many Christians do not take lightly to experimentation with religious subjects.

Not the experiment, but the purpose behind it.

You do realize that the premise of TLT is, IIRC, that none of it *actually* happened?

Of course not. I KNOW THAT. But others seem to think it's more historically correct than The Passion.

Which is what I was arguing.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Not the experiment, but the purpose behind it.
[/B]

I didn't see anything wrong with the motives behind the film.

[James Christ]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Not the experiment, but the purpose behind it.

Of course not. I KNOW THAT. But others seem to think it's more historically correct than The Passion.

Which is what I was arguing. [/B]

It actually is, without wanting to be.

You called it a Hollywoodized bastardization of history - it's based on a book which is far more detailed and accurate than the Gospels.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
I didn't see anything wrong with the motives behind the film.

What do you think the motives where?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by James Christ:
It actually is, without wanting to be.

No

You called it a Hollywoodized bastardization of history - it's based on a book which is far more detailed and accurate than the Gospels.

And what book is that? When was it written? Who wrote it?

Ask yourself that.

I trust the people that actually walked and talked with the guy.

[dav]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, it's not what I THINK, you yourself have shown this.

Do you think it makes you look clever making such non-answers?

It doesn't. I promise.

answering your own rhetorical questions, now that's clever.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dav:
answering your own rhetorical questions, now that's clever.

It was clear to me I needed to point out the obvious in this case.

[dav]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It was clear to me I needed to point out the obvious in this case.

you've successfully pointed out what you "know"

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not the experiment, but the purpose behind it.

Everything I've read/heard about the film and its creators makes it pretty clear that the main purpose of this experiment was to provoke thought and discussion about the nature of the Christ, and the importance his *humanity* may have had in his struggle with his own divinity. And a number of Christians do not take lightly to any kind of thought-provoking experiments involving religious subjects. It is invariably perceived as an attack by some - as by you.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Of course not. I KNOW THAT. But others seem to think it's more historically correct than The Passion.

Which is what I was arguing.

Actually, I couldn't see anybody arguing that.

All the discussion and requests to you to clarify your statements were referring to literary accuracy; i.e. how well the movie corresponds to the original material. Which in the case of TLToC was NOT the Bible, but another - apparently quite good - book.

-s*

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What do you think the motives where?

Let's just say that if the film-makers intentions were to discredit the basics of Christianity, or at least look to more earthly reasons behind it, then I'm ok with that. They do have the right to investigate such things, and expound their beliefs on the matter.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I trust the people that actually walked and talked with the guy.

It's historically accepted fact that none of those actually wrote any part of the Bible, though.

But your point still stands, even if you're only referring to near-contemporaries, rather than people who "actually walked and talked with the guy."

-s*

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Everything I've read/heard about the film and its creators makes it pretty clear that the main purpose of this experiment was to provoke thought and discussion. And a number of Christians do not take lightly to any kind of thought-provoking experiments involving religious subjects. It is invariably perceived as an attack by some - as by you.

So tell me Spheric. Do you think someone that doesn't know much about Jesus, watching this film, would form a distorted opinion of him?
I know people who see this as "The real truth"

This is the reason I am against it. It's deluding the truth.

Actually, I couldn't see anybody arguing that.

But on the same page, responding to this same post you just responded to..

Originally posted by James Christ:
It actually is, without wanting to be.

You called it a Hollywoodized bastardization of history - it's based on a book which is far more detailed and accurate than the Gospels.

So yes, indeed there are people who think it's more in tune with Jesus's life than the gospels themselves. And that is why I am against the movie. It's deceives and fools people.

The people who made said film probably had no intentions of such things I am sure. But it happens regardless.

All the discussion and requests to you to clarify your statements were referring to literary accuracy; i.e. how well the movie corresponds to the original material. Which in the case of TLToC was NOT the Bible, but another - apparently quite good - book.

-s*

Read above.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Let's just say that if the film-makers intentions were to discredit the basics of Christianity.

I am not so sure that was the reason. But if you think so, Why wouldn't Christians be offended by that?

[James Christ]

People forget that Scorsese is a Catholic, one of the good kind with a vast open mind, an ability to explore the human condition and reach out to more than just fanatics (who requested his film to be banned - the same people who went to see a movie by a holocaust denying anti-Semite who said he would like to kill one of his critics).

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
It's historically accepted fact that none of those actually wrote any part of the Bible, though.

No, no it's not. It's an opinion held by some.

[SubGeniux]

Personally, I don't think anyone can claim to know who Jesus was, or what he actually believed, or did, until all those Gospels, running into hundreds but were destroyed by the early Church, are produced for all to see.
Even then though, it's still wouldn't be enuogh to satisfy me.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by James Christ:
People forget that Scorsese is a Catholic,

And that means.. ? I know tons of "Christians" that lie daily.

one of the good kind

Heh

with a vast open mind, an ability to explore the human condition and reach out to more than just fanatics

He wasn't using spiritual knowledge to come to said conclusion. He failed before he began.

(who requested his film to be banned - the same people who went to see a movie by a holocaust denying anti-Semite who said he would like to kill one of his critics).

You are attacking Gibson , not the film. Gibson never said the Holocaust didn't happen at all.

"Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."

You are being dishonest and you are a deceiver.

The message you are putting out it "It's ok to lie, as long as it suits my needs"

Rubbish.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am not so sure that was the reason. But if you think so, Why wouldn't Christians be offended by that?

No, I know, but I was mentioning a very extreme interpretation, and even with that, the motives are still justified. The investigation into Christianity has been going on for several hundred years, it's by no means a thing of just our time.

P.s. Spheric gave a nice explanation as to what the motives might have been behind the movie (book).

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, no it's not. It's an opinion held by some.

Pretty much every non-Christian who interprets the Gospels, and certainly quite a few Christians themselves.


http://www.infidels.org They have an online library which is very good.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Pretty much every non-Christian who interprets the Gospels

Heh, and that says a lot to me.

http://www.infidels.org They have an online library which is very good.

Yes, the host just screams GOODNESS to me.

[James Christ]

You are attacking Gibson , not the film. Gibson never said the Holocaust didn't happen at all.

You are being dishonest.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Nonsense. You're not going to put any Christian guilt complex on me.

When pressed about the Holocaust Gibson is always cryptic 'Some Jews died' he says as if he thinks the number is somewhere around 100. Then he goes off on a tangent about others who died, which is fair enough but why change subject?

Yes, The Passion is anti-Semitic. It starts of with the title '...of the Christ'

Notice how he changed the title three times:
-The Passion
-The Passion of Christ
-The Passion of the Christ

By using '...the Christ' it is saying this is the Jewish messiah and leaving no space to allow for any other possibility even if his story has nothing to do with messianic prophecy or candidacy. He never became king, he didn't liberate Judea and he never ushered in an era of peace for Jews. These were the requirements for the messiah - not death, resurrection, bloodshed and centuries of Christian oppression and warfare by people who weren't even Jewish. That's all the same godman death and sacrifice stuff that has always been around.

Gesthue, Dumuzi, Adonis, Osiris - its all the same thing. A deity died so humanity could live. His blood was shed for YOU. So now go and give your money and prayers in return.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Heh, and that says a lot to me.

[/b]

Well let's not write off a whole host of people, from geniuses to philosophers, scientists, ex-Christians, theologists, etc. etc. I think tose who, over centuries, have spent a lifetime on this subject, deserve a little more.

Yes, the host just screams GOODNESS to me.

Funny, but the works in there, are invaluable, going back hundreds of years. Any serious attempt at Biblical criticism, or investigation, would at the very least be aquanted with said works.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by James Christ:
Nonsense. You're not going to put any Christian guilt complex on me.

Nothing to do with being a Christian. You shouldn't be a lying deceiver Christian or not.

When pressed about the Holocaust Gibson is always cryptic 'Some Jews died' he says as if he thinks the number is somewhere around 100. Then he goes off on a tangent about others who died, which is fair enough but why change subject?

100? Heh. Please show me.

You said he denied it happened.

Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."

Again, you are being a deceitful liar.

Yes, The Passion is anti-Semitic. It starts of with the title '...of the Christ'

Notice how he changed the title three times:
-The Passion
-The Passion of Christ
-The Passion of the Christ

Did you type that with your tin-foil hat on? Is that like numerology?

By using '...the Christ' it is saying this is the Jewish messiah and leaving no space to allow for any other possibility even if his story has nothing to do with messianic prophecy or candidacy.

So what you are saying is, you are mad because Gibson said, yes indeed Jesus is the Messiah, and didn't leave it up to interpretation? Give me a break.

He never became king, he didn't liberate Judea and he never ushered in an era of peace for Jews.

You are speaking of the second coming.

These were the requirements for the messiah - not death, resurrection, bloodshed and centuries of Christian oppression and warfare by people who weren't even Jewish. That's all the same godman death and sacrifice stuff that has always been around.

Gesthue, Dumuzi, Adonis, Osiris - its all the same thing. A deity died so humanity could live. His blood was shed for YOU. So now go and give your money and prayers in return.

So your rant is, you don't believe Christ is the messiah, so the movie is wrong. I see your true feelings now.

We shall see one day right?

If I am wrong, so be it. I led a good life.

If you are wrong...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Well let's not write off a whole host of people, from geniuses to philosophers, scientists, ex-Christians, theologists, etc. etc. I think tose who, over centuries, have spent a lifetime on this subject, deserve a little more.

Romans 1:20-22
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and divine nature, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,

You are confusing secular knowledge with spiritual knowledge.

The first cannot explain the second by definition.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

We shall see one day right?

If I am wrong, so be it. I led a good life.

If you are wrong...

Maybe not. What happens if Allah is the one true God? then you're fcuked. Believing in the trinity is a no-no in Islam, and a certain punishment is just waiting for you.

Hey, just wondering out loud here, Zimphire. Earlier you talk about how you trusted those that actually walke and talked with Jesus. How sbout Muhammed? there are volumes of books which recorded his life, by his followers, in his lifetime (I know that this is up for debate though). What about all his miracles, all the events that one could construe as meaning he is indeed a messenger of God? Would you believe in his message?

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


You are confusing secular knowledge with spiritual knowledge.

The first cannot explain the second by definition.

No, I'm not. Some very spiritual persons have come to this very conclusion, they are not atheists, but believers in God. Many of them have shown a spiritual insight far greater than we could possibly see in some people who we think of being spiritual today.

I think you're confusing Christian spirituality with spirituality in the widest sense, oh, and secularism.

[Zimphire]

You are correct, there are two sides of spirituality indeed.

One end I wouldn't want to touch with a 10 foot poll.

Not that who wrote what has any bearing on the message. That is just pettiness used to distract from the truth.

[ghost_flash]

I'm going to speak to the name changing of the movie:

You do realize that some corporate entities, namely movie studios own certain names right?

He [Gibson] had to choose a name that was not owned by anyone, just like you cannot own nike.com but you can own, maybe thenike.com unless they bought that too.

The Passion of Christ was owned by: Miramax
The Passion of The Christ was not.

Name Change of The Passion of The Christ

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You are correct, there are two sides of spirituality indeed.

One end I wouldn't want to touch with a 10 foot poll.

Not that who wrote what has any bearing on the message. That is just pettiness used to distract from the truth.

I can agree with that.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:

He [Gibson] had to choose a name that was not owned by anyone, just like you cannot own nike.com but you can own, maybe thenike.com unless they bought that too.

Flotsam & Jetsom: The Jones, great track. Jones on its own would sound like a Welsh miner (no offence to the Welsh)

[SubGeniux]

oops, double post.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So tell me Spheric. Do you think someone that doesn't know much about Jesus, watching this film, would form a distorted opinion of him?
I know people who see this as "The real truth"

This is the reason I am against it. It's deluding the truth.

It really doesn't matter. He ultimately resists temptation. There is nothing in the film that precludes biblical "truth", or personal acceptance of Jesus. On the contrary, I find the perspective of Christ from the *human* side FAR more interesting than yet another re-filming of the passion - especially one that seems to be not much more than a splatter action version of every other passion that came before (Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish churches here in Germany have unanimously and jointly criticized the passion as focusing on blood and guts, and not upon the message of Christ). I think that putting Jesus in a more human perspective and attempting to illuminate the conflicts that surely must have been tormenting him give far more depth to the character, and to the true dimensions of his calling and suffering.

It certainly makes him more interesting to me than your typical goodie-two-shoes-who-got-beaten-to-pulp Christ image. It actually strengthens the message by showing how difficult these choices must have been.

So, I think you're wrong. The film may not be for you, but for many, it may actually be the opposite of what you claim. Just a thought - not an attack, okay?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But on the same page, responding to this same post you just responded to..
[James Christ's post snipped]
So yes, indeed there are people who think it's more in tune with Jesus's life than the gospels themselves. And that is why I am against the movie. It's deceives and fools people.

You noted what I thought of this guy above, and you will note that he's been banned. 'nuff said. (Yes, you got me - he did claim this, but for obvious reasons, I discounted his posts.)

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The people who made said film probably had no intentions of such things I am sure. But it happens regardless.

True. But then, people hear satanic messages in the songs of the Beatles, the Stones, and Led Zeppelin. Does this mean that their railings are justified or even relevant?

It seems to me that the ones most worried about "misinterpretations" are the only ones who actually manage to construe these misinterpretations in the first place - the rest of the world looks, listens, enjoys, ponders, and moves on.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, no it's not. It's an opinion held by some.

Europe, I guess.

It's certainly taught as historical fact to theologians here, and I have yet to hear of anyone other than the usual North American splitter groups to seriously dispute the commonly accepted history of the NT.

-s*

[dav]

how timely

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Europe, I guess.

It's certainly taught as historical fact to theologians here, and I have yet to hear of anyone other than the usual North American splitter groups to seriously dispute the commonly accepted history of the NT.

-s*

I have to side with spheric here. Read Pelikan's "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol 1)".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

Great stuff there, outstanding scholarship.


Most likely, the only Gospel written by an original disciple is Thomas (canonical in the Coptic, Maronite, and Ethiopian traditions).

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Uhm. The proceeds often tell a tale on how good a movie was. A good judging factor, especially in this case. Like a best selling book, but better. You only need to sell 15,000 books to have a best seller. Do you know of any BAD movies made that have made record returns?

You seem pretty intelligent, didn't you know that?

It was a joke of a movie. Not even interesting in the least. If it represents the book at all, then the book is not on my list of reads.

It was a pathetic attempt on MS's part, and it was a waste of a good 7,000,000.

I thought LTOC was tedious but the idea that proceeds are a reliable indicator of book or movie quality is pretty comical, unless this is Movie Reviews By and For Sixth Graders.

[xenu]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, no it's not. It's an opinion held by some.

Which is your opinion.

There seems to be no written documents produced during the life of the person, or persons, labled jesus.